|
|
Post by numble on Jan 14, 2020 11:43:40 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by andert on Jan 14, 2020 13:37:39 GMT -8
I forget, are they maintaining the ability for a train to go from East LA to union (bypassing the new little tokyo station, taking i presume the current at grade route)? I assumed so to access the yards, but then I realized they can now access the expo yards instead coming from East LA. I ask because i figure that when they build out BOTH east LA alignments, they may wind up wanting to run one as a separate line to union.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 14, 2020 15:07:41 GMT -8
I forget, are they maintaining the ability for a train to go from East LA to union (bypassing the new little tokyo station, taking i presume the current at grade route)? I assumed so to access the yards, but then I realized they can now access the expo yards instead coming from East LA. I ask because i figure that when they build out BOTH east LA alignments, they may wind up wanting to run one as a separate line to union. No, the at-grade track linking East L.A. to Union Station will be permanently removed. All trains from East L.A. will head southwest into Downtown L.A. Theoretically they could rebuild such a link in the future. But this project will not provide for it. |
|
|
|
Post by transitfan on Jan 16, 2020 6:53:28 GMT -8
I forget, are they maintaining the ability for a train to go from East LA to union (bypassing the new little tokyo station, taking i presume the current at grade route)? I assumed so to access the yards, but then I realized they can now access the expo yards instead coming from East LA. I ask because i figure that when they build out BOTH east LA alignments, they may wind up wanting to run one as a separate line to union. No, the at-grade track linking East L.A. to Union Station will be permanently removed. All trains from East L.A. will head southwest into Downtown L.A. Theoretically they could rebuild such a link in the future. But this project will not provide for it. Too bad, an East LA-Pasadena connection would be handy for Rose Parade service. I guess they think it's not worth the trouble for something that would be used one day a year. So Rose Parade patrons from the eastside will have to make an across-the-platform transfer to the A (Blue) Line. I guess it could be worse. |
|
|
|
Post by jahanes on Jan 21, 2020 15:40:59 GMT -8
Since the at grade section between the Little Tokyo portal and Boyle heights portal is so short, they should make the small upgrades necessary to convert that section to high-speed right of way. A fence at quad gates at Vignes and Mission are all it would take. The exits at Pico/Aliso would also need special signs since they involve crossing the ROW and the street at the same time, but honestly, they could eliminate the stop since Mariachi Plaza is so proximate. This would shave as much as 5 minutes off Little Tokyo-Indiana travel times vs today.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jan 25, 2020 10:36:12 GMT -8
December 2019 project status report:
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 30, 2020 16:30:47 GMT -8
Metro forecast completion date is now 4/28/22, which is 16 days later compared to Nov forecast. Starting in January 2019, actual and planned progress began to diverge. We should now be at about 69% complete. There's still over two years to go. And the delay continues to grow. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Feb 20, 2020 16:14:30 GMT -8
Major Project Status Report for February is out. Regional Connector is listed as 62% complete (overall progress), slightly better than January (61%). So...1% progress, in a month. Which (at that rate) translates to three more years of construction.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Feb 26, 2020 15:22:11 GMT -8
January 2020 status report:
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Feb 28, 2020 10:31:29 GMT -8
Quick status summary: - The project fell behind 28 days in January...in effect, it's like they only made 3 days worth of progress that month. (In reality, they got a lot done in January. But they also realized that major delays are looming.)
- The wye and First/Alameda sections are being backfilled, and the streets will be restored by fall.
- Sections of "floating slab track" are being installed in both tunnels.
- The stations are all still being constructed...floors, roofs and walls being built.
- Management is concerned about their plan to temporarily connect signal lines from the Eastside corridor to the rest of the system, once the old Little Tokyo station is demolished. (They problem relates to "procurement set-backs".)
|
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Mar 24, 2020 12:11:13 GMT -8
Metro has published a Construction Committee report describing the current plan to get the Regional Connector running by 2022. In order to achieve their revenue service target of late 2022, Metro plans to cut off Little Tokyo service in late 2020. During this nearly two-year time span, they will tear down the old Little Tokyo surface station; build a trench ROW from 1st/Alameda to north of Temple/Alameda; and replace the ramp heading north toward the 101 freeway. During this time, a bus bridge will be established, which will continue to run until the Regional Connector opens. As for revenue service, Metro has long discussed the following operations pattern: - Long Beach - Azusa, Santa Monica - East LA.
Now they are also considering two other patterns: - Long Beach - East LA, Santa Monica - Azusa.
- Long Beach - East LA, Long Beach - Azusa, Santa Monica - Azusa, Santa Monica - East LA.
The last pattern is basically running every option as its own line. (That would wreak havoc on the new lettering system!) The last pattern (all 4 branches) increases headway for no real benefit in my opinion. Sure you get one seat ride but you also have to wait twice as long at the far end of the line. It's better to just transfer at one of the 4 transfer stations in DTLA - you likely won't have to wait as long as for the direct train. Metro must resist this stupid urge to run 4 branches. As for alternate pairing... I think there is some merit to the Santa Monica-Azusa and East LA-Long Beach pairing as opposed to the simple E-W & N-S pairing. Didn't Metro model the ridership of each pairing during the EIR for regional connector? I think we also need to look at this from a resource standpoint... which pairing will require more cars? Azusa-Long Beach is really long so Metro may have to dedicate more cars to it. East LA-Long Beach is a much closer in distance with Santa Monica-Azusa I think... so better balance in train allocation. But I'm just guessing. Operationally, I believe the East LA-Long Beach run can use all the vehicles from the Long Beach yard and some spares at the Midway yard north of Chinatown to operate the Eastside extension when the time is right. From a practicality standpoint it makes more sense to run service configured; Long Beach - East LA and Santa Monica - Azusa/Foothill Ext because of the trip parings. From West LA, Culver City, USC/Coliseum, Pasadena, San Gabriel Valley these origins and destinations mirror each other. In the EIR studies the core bump in Regional Connector ridership will come off of the Gold Line to Azusa and the Expo Line, where they will see an increase of 15-25% in ridership. The Long Beach and Eastside lines do well on their own as they feed into the rest of the system and they are more dependent on a connection to the Red and Purple Lines. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Mar 30, 2020 9:14:36 GMT -8
The last pattern (all 4 branches) increases headway for no real benefit in my opinion. Sure you get one seat ride but you also have to wait twice as long at the far end of the line. It's better to just transfer at one of the 4 transfer stations in DTLA - you likely won't have to wait as long as for the direct train. Metro must resist this stupid urge to run 4 branches. As for alternate pairing... I think there is some merit to the Santa Monica-Azusa and East LA-Long Beach pairing as opposed to the simple E-W & N-S pairing. Didn't Metro model the ridership of each pairing during the EIR for regional connector? I think we also need to look at this from a resource standpoint... which pairing will require more cars? Azusa-Long Beach is really long so Metro may have to dedicate more cars to it. East LA-Long Beach is a much closer in distance with Santa Monica-Azusa I think... so better balance in train allocation. But I'm just guessing. Operationally, I believe the East LA-Long Beach run can use all the vehicles from the Long Beach yard and some spares at the Midway yard north of Chinatown to operate the Eastside extension when the time is right. From a practicality standpoint it makes more sense to run service configured; Long Beach - East LA and Santa Monica - Azusa/Foothill Ext because of the trip parings. From West LA, Culver City, USC/Coliseum, Pasadena, San Gabriel Valley these origins and destinations mirror each other. In the EIR studies the core bump in Regional Connector ridership will come off of the Gold Line to Azusa and the Expo Line, where they will see an increase of 15-25% in ridership. The Long Beach and Eastside lines do well on their own as they feed into the rest of the system and they are more dependent on a connection to the Red and Purple Lines. That was my hunch based on personal observation and knowledge of commute pattern... West LA <--> I-210/Foothill corridor will see the most ridership increase via regional connector. Add in the logistic factor we both mentioned: number of cars required vs. stage length; it seems like these two pairings make the most sense. A line: Long Beach to East LA E line: Santa Monica to Azusa The original E-W, N-S pairing will require short line operations and turn around in Downtown for roughly 1/3 of the trains on the Long Beach to Azusa service. It's possible to run but adds more complexity. The alternate pairing as outlined above can run in pattern throughout the day without shortage of cars. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Apr 2, 2020 12:30:34 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Apr 2, 2020 15:06:30 GMT -8
Any thoughts/guesses on what parts of the regional connector could be accelerated in the slowdown? |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 24, 2020 9:06:32 GMT -8
Major Project Status Report for April is out. Regional Connector is listed as 64.5% complete (overall progress), slightly better than February (62%). In other words, hey completed 2.5% of the project in two months. If they could keep up this pace, the project would be complete in 28 months, i.e., August 2022. (But of course, projects don't work like that.) I guess I'm just grateful that this project is still moving forward, despite the coronavirus shutting almost everything else down.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 18, 2020 12:16:12 GMT -8
The first phase of street restoration at First/Alameda is now complete. The deck panels have been permanently removed, and the street fully restored.
Also: for some reason, this month's Construction Committee agenda does not include a Major Project Status Report. Not sure why.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on May 18, 2020 14:39:15 GMT -8
The first phase of street restoration at First/Alameda is now complete. The deck panels have been permanently removed, and the street fully restored. Also: for some reason, this month's Construction Committee agenda does not include a Major Project Status Report. Not sure why. It seems like they will try to cover the construction updates as part of the "Annual Program Evaluation" item, which has slides that are similar to (but not the same as) the construction status report. metro.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=8440584&GUID=AD57B310-FECA-461D-8EA6-8723BD419DDE |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on May 20, 2020 14:05:09 GMT -8
The first phase of street restoration at First/Alameda is now complete. The deck panels have been permanently removed, and the street fully restored. Also: for some reason, this month's Construction Committee agenda does not include a Major Project Status Report. Not sure why. It seems like they will try to cover the construction updates as part of the "Annual Program Evaluation" item, which has slides that are similar to (but not the same as) the construction status report. metro.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=8440584&GUID=AD57B310-FECA-461D-8EA6-8723BD419DDELots of fascinating stuff in that, particularly about the bonding limits on most of the big international contractors, might mean that sepulveda will be out of reach of the massively extended tutor perini given all the other mega projects they have going. If metro is considering that a mark against some of these firms that might be a good thing. It’s a shame there’s not more regional rail double tracking projects in the pipeline, they’d be perfect for a 2021 stimulus shovel ready acceleration |
|
|
|
Post by numble on May 27, 2020 15:48:36 GMT -8
April 2020 status report. The contractor is running into staffing issues and says COVID-19 could result in further costs and delays.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 22, 2020 9:26:50 GMT -8
Major Project Status Report for June is out. Regional Connector is now listed as 65.8% complete (overall progress), slightly better than April (64.5%). In other words, hey completed 1.3% of the project in two months. Progress is slowing down. I know that the contractor has made good progress on closing up the street at First/Alameda. It looks like crew staffing issues (due to COVID-19) are impacting the contractor's ability to keep to the schedule. BTW, the Purple Line Phase 1 project is now at 61%. I guess that project is having fewer COVID problems. Will be interesting to see if that project overtakes the Regional Connector in the coming months.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jun 29, 2020 15:33:43 GMT -8
May 2020 project status report shows 66.2% completion, +1.1% compared to April report.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jul 22, 2020 11:40:09 GMT -8
June 2020 project status report shows 67.2% completion at end of June, +1% compared to end of May.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Aug 6, 2020 15:02:41 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Aug 10, 2020 15:49:11 GMT -8
I'm having trouble reconciling 80% vs. 66%
Maybe Metro is excluding certain elements from the 80% claim like the restoration/mitigation on streetscape in Little Tokyo. But still, that's a huge difference even if you take into account the couple of % that may be attributable to restoration.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Aug 10, 2020 16:56:12 GMT -8
I think the 80% probably refers to the subway parts of the project
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 11, 2020 14:46:51 GMT -8
I just watched the video, and was shocked by that statement. It says, Not just the subway portions.
Maybe the contractor finally got the project status up-to-date?
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Aug 11, 2020 19:16:42 GMT -8
I just watched the video, and was shocked by that statement. It says, Not just the subway portions. Maybe the contractor finally got the project status up-to-date? What are the "subway portions"? Isn't it all below ground? All I can think of is that they are going by elapsed time. Construction started in 2013 and time-wise they've used 7.5 years of what should be a 9.5 year schedule. 7.5 divided by 9.5 is 79% complete. It's certainly misleading no matter what metric they are using. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Aug 12, 2020 19:46:45 GMT -8
They replaced the video with an update that says 68% complete! youtube |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 17, 2020 8:48:48 GMT -8
They corrected the video after I posted a comment questioning their number. What are the "subway portions"? Isn't it all below ground? Not 100%. A new short bridge will be built north of Temple to connect to the existing aerial portion. And technically, they will be putting down some new at-grade tracks, east of 1st/Alameda. BTW, I was responding to culvercitylocke's comment: I think the 80% probably refers to the subway parts of the project |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Aug 25, 2020 17:42:55 GMT -8
Here is their presentation on the Regional Connector operating plan. They recommend staying with the Long Beach <=> Azusa, Santa Monica <=> East LA pairings as the most workable, although it seems there are more passengers that are taking trips along a routing of Santa Monica <=> Azusa and Long Beach <=> East LA. metro.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=8731747&GUID=AB415384-F8D5-4FCE-8155-B6581B79CF13The July 2020 status report says the project is 68.1% complete. |
|
